thoughts about Cab sim vs plugins

[pfschim]

Hey, just getting my DAW back in working order and I have more or less got things working.
I started out just seeking to get a good clean bass tone into my interface without any processing. Once I did that I have spent some time with the outboard options I have on hand to flavor the bass signal, and I have also checked out a few vst/plugins mostly IK Multimedia stuff.

As I was exploring various options over the past few weeks I came across a suggestion to try an outboard cab sim pedals (like Two Notes or DSM) to influence recorded tone. So I was just wondering what the collective thoughts/opinioms were about outboard cab sim pedals vs DAW plugins ?

I understand that a plug in can be selectively applied or removed as its in the digital domain, and the cab sim would be a permanent part of any track that it had been applied to, but other than that are there arguments for/against using either approach ? or is it more like just having another tone shaping tool in the box ?

inquiring minds want to know

 

[pfschim]

hmm, lotsa looks, but no opinions ?
this IS Talkbass right ?

 

[powerdimer]

If you like the sound of the pedal, it's good. That simple and that hard..

Myself I use vsts for simplicity and flexibility. Haven't found a pedal that sounds markedly better than the vst's in Amplitube. I've tinkered around with a sansamp bddi, but not overly happy with the result. I use a precision with flats mostly, and a bit drive depending on the song.

And

 

[pfschim]

got it, thanks.
For studio work, I have always been told by engineers that a clean, un-effected bass track is the best way to go. You can always add something later.
But my pro level studio experience is admittedly somewhat dated, and there is the whole (not so)-newish home recording world happening, so part of my question is driven by an interest in knowing how this (effected bass tracking) is best handled in the newer world of digital home recording.

I guess the perspective that you can add something later, but once a track is recorded, you can't remove it ... still holds true though.

I will say that it's fascinating to work with these vst/plugins ... so many ways to shape your sound.

 

[powerdimer]

Yes, i agree. I'm just a happy amateur, but I think the vsts are so good now, it's much easier for a non studio pro like me to get a good sound without working my butt off... The vsts are much more forgiving, and you can modify (fix your weird decisions..) pretty much every aspect of the signal after it's recorded with a decent DI. Didn't like the amp sound/the dirt when you hear the song after a week? 5 minutes of work to find a more suitable sound.

I love the old school fat p-bass ampeg sound, but I have a hard time getting a good result even if I use my preferred svt classic, a good cab, the best studio mikes etc. rigged up. The times I have done it in studios, I've never been perfectly happy with the result. Too many factors that can go wrong I think, mic placement, room acoustics, amp settings etc.

 

[alecvbass]

As I guy who had both the DSM OCSD and the Torpedo CAB M, I always used either of them when playing live shows but neither of them when recording direct (home or studio) since you'll have way more flexibility with the pure DI signal. The cab sims are a quick and painless way to achieve a great tone without having to fiddle around too much.
Both are very good tone shaping tools and are required (IMO ofc) if you play live with any distortion that's more than a bit of hair.

 

[equill]

IMO, it's another tool in the box.

If you have a DI in front of it with separate amp and balanced/DI outs, then you can record a dry DI tone in parallel with the sound coming from the amp-sim pedal. That gives you a lot of flexibility.

A further, slightly more complicated option, is re-amping - record a dry DI tone, then later on you run that signal out through the interface to the cab-sim (or whatever) pedal, and back in through the interface to a new track. Depending on the pedal, it may require a re-amp box to "un-DI" the signal back to instrument-type impedance, which adds expense.
But that means you can get the performance right first, and can then tweak the tone to your heart's content. If your resources allow it, you can run it out through a physical amp and microphone, and take all the time you need to get the mic placement exactly right.

 

[Frank Tuesday]

I go Bass > Restrospec DI > Interface. I never add FX before recording (to the point that my bass is just the pickup wired directly to the output jack), once you add something you can't remove it, and once you remove it you can't add it back. Just get a good signal recorded and you can add all the FX later when you hear how your choices affect the mix. It doesnt' matter how the bass sounds on its own; it matters how it functions in the mix.

 

[DigitalMan]

I'd just record the outboard gear on one track and simultaneously lay down an unaffected track using a bypass/thru, or if necessary, an upstream signal splitter. You can have your cake and eat it too. No reason not to IMO. And then, if you like a plugin, or a different piece of outboard gear you can clone tracks, re-amp, whatever. And if you end up liking the direct track alone that's fine too. Better to have a not need than need and not have.

 

[pfschim]

thought I'd come back and mention how I ended up (at least so far) ..

I have basically settled on the same signal path that I use live:
Bass => Cali76CB (set to very light sidechain comp .. so called "NY style") => Noble DI (moderate use of EQ options on the Noble)
From time to time I will switch out the Noble for the VT Deluxe depending on the track needs ... more Fender-ish vs more Ampeg-ish.

I also updated my gen1 Focusrite Scarlett 18i6 to a gen3 Scarlett 18i8. Bit better dynamics/headroom specs on the pre's and the Focusrite AIR function is definitely noticeable on the tracks, at least when solo'd, probably totally lost when in the full mix. I also figured out how to do DAW monitoring vs Direct monitoring without any meaningful artifacts and that helped me very much ... much more pleasing sound when tracking. I'm still monitoring with just headphones (Sennheiser HD280 pro's) which seem to work ok, but I may go ahead and get some decent near field monitors just to have that option.

As I said, the signal chain is what I use live so that was a nice discovery .. although probably totally just confirmation bias, i.e. I like what I hear live and thus I like what I hear when tracking

I did play around with all kinds of VST/plugins before I returned to the Cali76/Noble path. Lots of fun, and eye-opening for sure. Reaper/Cockos provide some nice EQ's and comps, and the Focusrite RED FX are pretty nice too. I also tried just going totally clean, straight into the Scarlett pre in Instrument mode but that was just too raw/dinky sounding for my tastes and purposes.

So far, so good. The folks I am doing tracks for seem to like the results, and some of them are pretty sophisticated studio users, so I must be on a reasonably solid path.

so much to learn/re-learn, and lots of time to check things out. not a bad combination.